Comments on abstract, title, references

-The aim is clear as it show that the review will aware the society about how to handle diabetic resistance and how treat diabetes resistance by food intake and refer to benefit bacteria. -The abstract not included how the publisher can reach his goal and achieve his aim. -The title is broad , unclear and not specific . -References in general good and recent more than 70% after 2010 about 25% more than 2000 and few below 2000. -References are relevant and go in depth and matching to aim. -But references not referenced good there is fallacy sometimes not write year, or journal name or number EX: (Koskinen, J., Magnussen, C. G., Wuertz, P., Soininen, P., Kangas, A. J., Viikari, J. S. A., . . . Raitakari, O. T. 506 Apolipoprotein B, oxidized low‐density lipoprotein, and LDL particle size in predicting the 507 incidence of metabolic syndrome: the Cardiovascular Risk in Young Finns study. )

Comments on introduction/background

As regard introduction it is clear what's known about the title _Answered clearly about the research question outline. -Covered all recent points related to insulin resistance.

Comments on methodology

The process of subject selection is clear and variable cover all sides of the research The variable are not defined properly , NOT write the method clear> The study methods are variable and relevant. There is no enough details ,some experiment are missing as, blood glucose tolerance test ,fasting and postprandial blood glucose level.

Comments on data and results

Think that data not represented in appropriate manners Poor in tables and figures Tittle written not clear Statistical results are clear to the table used

Comments on discussion and conclusions

In discussion the results are discussed good and relevant Conclusion answer the aim of work and clear The study open the way for new research Overall,the study can answer question in the aim ,relevant to each other , add new points in insulin resistance like role of benefit bacterial flora. In summary title is good discussed in a good manner add to topic and add to my knowledge in this point. Major points in the article which needs clarification, refinement, reanalysis, rewrites and/or additional information and suggestions for what could be done to improve the article. 1.Methodology 2.Results 3.Concolusion Minor points like figures/tables not being mentioned in the text, a missing reference, typos, and other inconsistencies. 1. Lipid profile results 2.Tables for results. 3.HOMA IR results